When this advice first appeared on beer cans, I, like many others found cause for amusement, after all, alcohol is a drug that causes people to act irresponsibly and as everyone knows, once one has started consuming alcohol, the notion of what is and is not responsible, quickly changes perspective and what was considered irresponsible, is no longer as we are caught up in the moment of irresponsibility, which, incidentally, was the objective in the first place!
So what is responsible drinking and why is not made clear on the product?
Image taken from Google Images |
So what is responsible drinking and why is not made clear on the product?
Food manufacturers manage to put the ingredients, nutritional content and the guideline daily amounts, GDA, on even the smallest items but with alcohol, all we are told, if we’re lucky, is: the number of units, we are not informed of the GDA or for that matter, the calorie content.
In medical terms, responsible drinking is defined as, 21 units a week for men and 14 units a week for women. This is exceeded by 40% of men and 25% of women. However, given that people who drink too much often lie about how much they drink, this figure is likely to be higher.
In addition, medical guidelines also recommend a daily limit of 3-4 units for men and 2-3 units for women. Effectively without quibbling over the relative strengths of different beverages, we are talking one drink a day, a pint of beer, a glass of wine, a double of spirits, and that’s your lot. Also a 500ml can of super lager at 4.5 units exceeds what is considered medically responsible.
According to a Health Select Committee report in January 2010, the drinks industry is dependent on harmful drinking for three quarters of its sales, which incidentally, would fall by 40 per cent if everyone did drink responsibly. Therefore, in order for everyone to drink responsibly, alcohol prices would have to rise by 40 per cent to prevent serious job losses in the drinks industry.
Researchers into minimum pricing strategies have claimed that a minimum price of 50p per unit could potentially reduce the cost of alcohol related problems by £9.7 billion, prevent 3,400 deaths and reduce hospital admissions by 98,000. However campaigners against minimum pricing claim that it would be unfair to penalise the majority of responsible drinkers on account of the irresponsible few.
Obviously, the Government’s revenue would also be affected by an increase in responsible drinking. In 2009/10, the Government spent £17.6 million on alcohol awareness compared to £800 million spent by the drinks industry promoting alcohol consumption, that’s 45 times more persuasion than prevention. Research conducted in the Netherlands in 2009 has demonstrated that alcohol on TV does encourage drinking in young people.
The other argument for doing as little as possible is the current economic climate. A report by Transform in 2005 put alcohol as 62 per cent more affordable in 2005 than in 1980, a time when the country was experiencing, similar economic hardships. Also recent research states that supermarkets would benefit from minimum pricing.
However, recent proposals by the Government to introduce a minimum price have been criticised for being so low, as to not have any effect.
Consequently, supermarket chains will continue to lure customers into their stores with the offer of cheap alcohol, no longer confined to the drinks section, but now displayed in mountainous stacks throughout the store, at knock-down prices.
Alcohol is a drug, now considered to be much more dangerous than previously thought, A Lancet study organised by the former Chief Advisor to government on drugs Professor David Nutt, one of the country’s leading experts on the effects of drugs, puts alcohol above heroin and crack in terms of the harm it does both to the user and society.
As with all drugs, addicts provide a more lucrative return than responsible users and the Government, perhaps for reasons of its own financial predicament, seems only too happy to let the irresponsible marketing and selling of this drug continue.
The Real Daft Vader - Telling like it is to a Galaxy Far Far Away!
just curious, do you think it would make any difference if they banned any kind of branding or promotional stuff on packaging? so plain cans and plain bottles. Would it effect sales?
ReplyDeletenot immediately but yes, with time. Would there be advertising if packaging etc didnt entice the undecided ? ?
DeleteGreat illustration!
ReplyDeleteSurely a minimum of 50p per unit would only add to the problems that heavy drinkers and those dependent on alchohol have. As the artical says,2/3 of drinkers are "iresponsable" so it follows that the most needy will have to pay what sounds to me like another form of tax. The alchohol & tobbaco companies spend millions encouraging & tempting people to become addicted and then increas the prices. Typical pusher mentality tactics. Its obviouse that something has to be done to address this destructive pattern. But why do the sufferers have to pay, why don't the goverment recover the cost of treatments from the multi-nationals who can afford it. Without the industry behaving responsably how can anybody expect Joe Public to comply. Writting warnings on cans or packets change absolutly nothing, a better use of this money, set aside to advertise and promote these life destroying drugs, would be to give it to the NHS and other organizations that struggle to cope with the problems created by their irrisponsable attitude.
ReplyDelete